From: "James Britt (rubydev)" <james@...>
Date: 2001-12-29T10:44:08+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:29611] Re: Python and Ruby: a comparison


> Frankly, though, rpm is not IMO the best way of installing what is
> intended to be production software. I use it where packages are
> available) as a quick and dirty checkout of something of marginal or
> medium interest. Otherwise, ./configure - make - make install IMO gives
> superior long term results and i would think that a sys admin on a
> server would prefer that route anyway.
>
> Also, with rpm it is best to ~always~ check for dependencies; generally
> when the install fails it is because of need for a newer version of a
> given library, or it is missing entirely. Installing the correct version
> of the lib generally solves the problem in my experience.
>
> And, although this should be obvious, I have solved or avoided a lot of
> install problems simply by reading the README and/or INSTALL files! :-)
>
> Try and see if you can't get them to reconsider the ./conf etc. route;
> maybe offer to hold their hands throughout the process. Ruby is
> definitely worth it.

Ruby installs quite easily using the ./configure, make, make install route.
Don't even need to be root.  I typically write a small shell script with whatever
configure parameters to config, build, and intall.  I've installed ruby remotley using
such scripts with no problem.  The folks at sitehost4u (where rubyxml.com is hosted)
wouldn't install mod_ruby, but they let me compile the ruby source and run ruby CGI
scripts.  It was quite simple.


James


>
> Regards,
>
> Kent Starr
> elderburn@mindspring.com
>
>